MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994997940 · doi:10.1364/boe.382278

SOFIevaluator: a strategy for the quantitative quality assessment of SOFI data

2019· article· en· W2994997940 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Optics Express · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsSt. Peter's Hospital
FundersEuropean Research CouncilFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsComputer scienceImage qualityResolution (logic)Image resolutionSample (material)Fluorescence-lifetime imaging microscopyLimit (mathematics)OpticsFluorescenceArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)PhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Super-resolution fluorescence imaging techniques allow optical imaging of specimens beyond the diffraction limit of light. Super-resolution optical fluctuation imaging (SOFI) relies on computational analysis of stochastic blinking events to obtain a super-resolved image. As with some other super-resolution methods, this strong dependency on computational analysis can make it difficult to gauge how well the resulting images reflect the underlying sample structure. We herein report SOFIevaluator, an unbiased and parameter-free algorithm for calculating a set of metrics that describes the quality of super-resolution fluorescence imaging data for SOFI. We additionally demonstrate how SOFIevaluator can be used to identify fluorescent proteins that perform well for SOFI imaging under different imaging conditions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it